3 ms·

I fail to see your reasoning. The court's argument is Google is maintaining this dominance via these default deals, not that it got there through them. Given t

I fail to see your reasoning. The court's argument is Google is maintaining this dominance via these default deals, not that it got there through them. Given the last 25 years of history, Google's product has gotten worse after these default deals. Previously it established the dominance because it found whatever a user searched for. Arguing otherwise just feels unrealistic. They never had any exclusive deals with any provider. Edit: Changed exclusive to default.

crazygringo 2y ago
There are no exclusivity deals. These are deals around defaults, not exclusivity. Google never paid Apple to remove Bing from the list of choices. That's what an exclusivity deal would do. But it didn't happen, because this doesn't have anything to do with exclusivity.
- ankit219 2y ago
  Oh yeah, i thought the previous user used them interchangeably. I messed it up. I think it's exclusive in a way that no one else could make the same deal. Not explicitly locking others out, but in a significant way, it implicitly did. The point was they became a monopoly cos they had a good product, and now the product is not as good after these default deals they made with Apple, Samsung etc.
- asadotzler 2y ago
  It is exclusivity. I've been involved in some of these contracts going all the way back to the Summer of 2004 and they absolutely involve exclusivity. If Safari or Firefox product managers added a new search access point and their business people tried to sell default placement for that new search access point, they'd violate their contract. That's exclusivity. Opera used to do that kind of thing, they had three different search defaults for three different access points in the 2000s but by 2010 Google was no longer allowing that in their contracts because exclusivity.
  - magicalist 2y ago
    That might just be overloading the term in a way that clouds the issue though? The exclusive default search provider for a browser vs the exclusive search provider for a browser is pretty different.

crazygringo 2y ago

There are no exclusivity deals. These are deals around defaults, not exclusivity. Google never paid Apple to remove Bing from the list of choices. That's what an exclusivity deal would do. But it didn't happen, because this doesn't have anything to do with exclusivity.

ankit219 2y ago
Oh yeah, i thought the previous user used them interchangeably. I messed it up. I think it's exclusive in a way that no one else could make the same deal. Not explicitly locking others out, but in a significant way, it implicitly did. The point was they became a monopoly cos they had a good product, and now the product is not as good after these default deals they made with Apple, Samsung etc.
asadotzler 2y ago
It is exclusivity. I've been involved in some of these contracts going all the way back to the Summer of 2004 and they absolutely involve exclusivity. If Safari or Firefox product managers added a new search access point and their business people tried to sell default placement for that new search access point, they'd violate their contract. That's exclusivity. Opera used to do that kind of thing, they had three different search defaults for three different access points in the 2000s but by 2010 Google was no longer allowing that in their contracts because exclusivity.
- magicalist 2y ago
  That might just be overloading the term in a way that clouds the issue though? The exclusive default search provider for a browser vs the exclusive search provider for a browser is pretty different.